R v Hraichie (No. 1) - [2019] NSWSC 319

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hraichie (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 319
Hearing dates: 25 March 2019
Date of orders: 25 March 2019
Decision date: 25 March 2019
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
1. The audio-visual recording of the Offender's interview with the Australian Federal Police on 14 September 2016 is not to be published.
2. The transcript of the audio-visual recording of the Offender's interview with the Australian Federal Police on 14 September 2016 is not to be published.
3. The annexures labelled Annexures A to G to the Agreed Statement of Facts in the Commonwealth proceedings are not to be published.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing hearing - Offender pleaded guilty to four charges - committing acts in preparation for or planning of terrorist acts (s.101.6(1)) Criminal Code (Cth)) - intentionally delivering letter threatening to kill (s.31 Crimes Act 1900) - wound with intent to murder (s.27 Crimes Act 1900) - cause grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (s.33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900) - application for non-publication orders concerning certain evidence to be tendered at sentencing hearing - public interest in restricting further publication of or broadcasting of terrorist material by extremist groups - non-publication orders made
Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010
Cases Cited: R v Dirani (No 32) [2019] NSWSC 275
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Bourhan Hraichie (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms S Callan; Ms D New (Commonwealth Crown)
Mr LJ Carr SC (State Crown)
Ms GA Bashir SC; Ms G Huxley (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth Crown)
NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (State Crown)
Lawyers Corp Pty Limited (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/277456 (Commonwealth); 2016/108074 (State)
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment

JOHNSON J: Listed before the Court this morning are sentencing proceedings with respect to the Offender, Bourhan Hraichie, who has pleaded guilty to a number of offences including a terrorist offence.
At the commencement of the proceedings this morning, Senior Counsel for the Offender made application by way of Notice of Motion dated 25 March 2019 for orders under the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010. The orders sought are based upon s.8(1)(e) of that Act, and seek that the audio-visual recording of the Offender's interview with the Australian Federal Police on 14 September 2016 not be published, the transcript of that interview not be published and that a number of documents referred to as annexures to the Agreed Statement of Facts in the Commonwealth matter not be published.
Counsel for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (“Commonwealth Director”) and the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions (“State Director”) have not opposed the making of the order.
The sentencing hearing will involve placing before the Court a range of documents, including Agreed Statements of Facts in both the Commonwealth and State proceedings together with detailed written submissions prepared by counsel for the Commonwealth Director, the State Director and the Offender. That material will provide…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Hraichie (No. 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Hraichie (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 319
Case: [2019] NSWSC 319
Decision Date: 25 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hraichie (No. 1) involved an offender who pleaded guilty to multiple serious charges related to terrorist activities. The offender was charged under section 101.6(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) for committing acts in preparation for or planning of terrorist acts, as well as charges under the Crimes Act 1900, including intentionally delivering a letter threatening to kill, wounding with intent to murder, and causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the offender and consider an application for non-publication orders concerning certain evidence to be tendered at the sentencing hearing.

The legal issues before the court included the principles of sentencing for terrorism-related offences and the balance between the public interest in restricting the publication or broadcasting of terrorist material by extremist groups and the right to a fair trial. The court had to weigh the gravity of the offences against the need to protect the community from further harm caused by the dissemination of terrorist material. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether non-publication orders were necessary to prevent the further publication or broadcasting of material that could incite or facilitate terrorist acts.

In reaching its decision, the court recognised the seriousness of the offences committed by the offender, which involved planning and committing acts of terrorism. The court also acknowledged the public interest in preventing the spread of terrorist material that could incite further acts of violence. The court concluded that non-publication orders were necessary to protect the community from the potential harm that could arise from the further dissemination of such material. As a result, the court made non-publication orders in relation to certain evidence that was to be tendered at the sentencing hearing. The court then proceeded to determine the appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account all relevant factors, including the gravity of the offences and the need to deter and rehabilitate the offender.

The court ordered that the offender be sentenced on a future date and that the non-publication orders remain in place to prevent the further publication or broadcasting of the terrorist material in question. The court's decision highlighted the importance of balancing the principles of open justice with the need to protect the community from the harmful effects of terrorist activities.

Orders